Life Insurance Corporation of India vs RAJESHWARI SATI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of Smt. Rajeshwari Sati for recovery of insured amount on the death of her husband was allowed.

ALL the facts are admitted. It is also admitted that the deceased Shri Govind Ballabh Sati, the husband of Smt. Rajeshwari Sati was insured. The premium etc. was properly paid. The insurance was from 28.3.1995. During the insurance period he died. The claimant lodged the claim and it was repudiated on the ground that Sh. Govind Ballabh Sati has committed suicide. Then the complainant filed the complaint. In the complaint also the complainant alleged that it was an ordinary natural death while the case of the Insurance Company was that the insured has committed suicide within a year of the insurance and he was not insane. The victim died on 4.6.1995 within one year of the insurance. It is said that due to suicide within a year, the claim was repudiated. On the evidence of the parties, the learned Forum held that the victim died an ordinary death, it was not the case of suicide, therefore, it allowed the claim petition against which order the present appeal has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. From the side of the complainant, there was her affidavit, she is the best witness. She has also produced the certificate of Gram Pradhan who resides in the village and knows everything and has also produced the certificate of the Tehsildar. All these papers show that this was natural death. From the side of the Insurance Company the report of the Nayab Tehsildar was filed. The report of the Nayab Tehsildar is dated 30.12.1996 whereas the victim died on 4.6.1995. Therefore, Nayab Tehsildar is not a witness on the facts and is also not an eye-witness. He has given the certificate on the basis of the Panchayatnama prepared by the Patwari of the village. On 30.10.2003 an order was passed that if there is a Panchayatnama and the report of the Patwari on the basis of which the Nayab Tehsildar has given his report that it was a case of the suicide, it be produced before us. The report of the Patwari and Panchayatnama has not been filed. In the Panchayatnama at least there should have been the witnesses of the village and from the perusal of the report of the Patwari it could have been known whether the Patwari has seen the dead body or not. If this was a case of hanging, in the Panchayatnama this fact should have been mentioned. In spite of expiry of two months time, the said papers were not filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, it is presumed that these papers are not in existence or at least the papers if produced could have gone against the Insurance Company.

THE allegation is that of the Insurance Company that it was a case of suicide and it is the Insurance Company which has to prove it. No reliable evidence could be given to prove this case as a case of suicide. In the absence of any reliable evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company, the learned Forum was perfectly justified in believing the affidavit of the complainant and other evidences on record.

WE do not find anything for which the order as passed by the learned Forum may be interfered with. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.